On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 18:08 +0300, Roman Kagan wrote: > On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 10:15:31AM +0200, Yan Vugenfirer wrote: > > > > > On 06 Nov 2015, at 08:51, Vadim Rozenfeld <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 2015-11-05 at 21:46 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:05:42AM +1100, Vadim Rozenfeld wrote: > > >>> On Wed, 2015-10-28 at 14:53 +0300, Roman Kagan wrote: > > >>>> 1) tell which devices can be configured > > >>> Not sure that I fully understated your question. but if you are going to > > >>> create some sort of off-line automatic virtio-win drivers update > > >>> utility, then it shouldn't be too complicated. Firs of all you will need > > >>> to obtain the Windows kernel version by reading the following Registry > > >>> key - "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion". Let's say it > > >>> 6.3, which means that it is Win8.1 or WS2012R2, parsing "BuildLabEx" > > >>> string from the same hive will give you information about the platform > > >>> bitness. Next you need to go through inf files, and find "DriverVer" > > >>> string, like this one . taken from from vioscsi.inf > > >>> > > >>> DriverVer=08/01/2015,62.72.104.10800 > > >>> > > >>> This string contains build time and version stamps. The version stamp > > >>> looks as follow "62.72.104.10800" > > >>> where 62 means a target Windows kernel version multiplied by 10. In this > > >>> case it is 6.2 which means Win8 or WS2012 > > >>> 72 - the target host platform version multiplied bu 10 (was RHEL7.2) > > >>> 104 just a magic number, but it can be changed, don't make any > > >>> assumption based on this number. > > >>> 10800 our internal build number (build 108) multiplied by 100 > > >> > > >> Hi Vadim, > > >> > > >> I've almost finished implementing this, but I have a couple of > > >> technical questions: > > >> > > >> (1) How can we tell from the .inf file what architecture (x86 or > > >> amd64) the driver is for? There is a [Manufacturer] section which > > >> looks hopeful, eg: > > >> > > >> [Manufacturer] > > >> %RHEL% = RHEL,NTAMD64 > > >> > > >> but the contents are not very consistent across all the .inf files I > > >> have access to. > > > > > > Hi Richard, > > > > > > It should be consistent. We do specify target architecture (amd64 or > > > x86) when stamping inf/inx files. IIRC, qemupciserial.inf is the only > > > exception, but it goes without binaries. In any case, if you are going > > > to use existing distribution media, you can rely on the media layout - > > > for example, if "amd64" is a part of your current path - you are in > > > 64-bit directory. > > >> > > >> (2) If we have a directory containing multiple drivers, can we assume > > >> that if any .inf file found matches the guest OS, then all those > > >> drivers can be installed? So far this appears to be true. > > > Yes, we will never mix 32 and 64 bit drivers into the same directory. > > > I swear:) > > > > > >> If not > > >> then we have to start associating drivers with .inf files, which seems > > >> a bit complicated. > > >> > > >> (3) You write: > > >> > > >>> If you found an inf file with the matching minor OS (6 in our case) > > >>> version and matching or less but close minor version number (2 vs 3) > > >>> then you are in the right directory. > > >> > > >> When you say "close minor version number" is there a particular > > >> definition you have in mind? eg. minor or minor-1 is OK? Or do we > > >> have to consider all .inf files in totality and choose the nearest > > >> one? > > > Ideally, we should try finding the exact match. If not, we have to find > > > one with the same major version number and nearest minor number which is > > > smaller than the target one. For example, let's say we are looking for a > > > driver for Win8.1/WS2012R2, we know that both of them have kernel > > > version 6.3 . So, ideally we should to find inf file with the following > > > driver version string: > > > > > > DriverVer=XX/YY/ZZZZ,63.AA.BBB.CCCCC > > > > > > if we cannot find an inf file with such criteria, we should try finding > > > another one with the OS version 62 (which means that a driver was build > > > for kernel 6.2 Win8/WS2012 and technically should be compatible with > > > 6.3). So, we are looking for DriverVer which looks like this one: > > > DriverVer=XX/YY/ZZZZ,62.AA.BBB.CCCCC > > > > > > Still no luck - decrease the target OS version to 61 and repeat. > > > > > > For WDF drivers like balloon, vioserial, and rng you can go as far as > > > you can trying to find an appropriate driver. > > > > > > For miniport drivers like netkvm ( Yan, please confirm ), viostor and > > > vioscsi I wouldn't go too far. For example drivers designed to fork in > > > specific stacks at kernel version 5.1 (WinXP) can refuse working with > > > kernel 6.2 (Win8). > > > > While NDIS miniport designed for NDIS 5.1 (XP) still can run on latest > > Windows, I wouldn’t do that. For NDIS 6.x (Windows 2008 and newer), we can > > use older drivers on new OS. > > But installing a driver for a newer OS on older OS might lead to driver > > miss-behaviour. > > I'm wondering how people who don't rely on virt-v2v are supposed to > discover the virtio drivers for their guests? This includes both those > who do it programmatically and those who locate the appropriate drivers > manually. > > I mean, both manual and programmatic procedures should resolve to the > same set of drivers, and ideally the procedure should be the same, > declared official and documented. > > I see no problem implementing any particular algorithm, no matter how > complex, in v2v, but I'd like to make sure that my colleagues who, say, > write a tool for unattended deployment of Windows guests, or others, who > manually set up their Windows VMs, arrive at the same configuration. > > I tend to think that your original idea of sorting that out on the > driver build side, and storing the resulting drivers grouped by > Windows arch/version following a well-defined and stable naming > convention is a more reliable and universal solution. >
It definitely shouldn't be so complicated. Packaging drivers on per-platform base can solve most of the problems. One single iso image, containing both 32 and 64 bit drivers compatible to run on Win8/Win8.1/WS2012/WS2012R2, and exposing an appropriate media layout "understandable" by all these platforms, is what we need. After all, the information provided n this thread, should be enough for writing a script that can split our single iso image into several properly build ones. In this case, the only thing you should worry about, is that <os>\<architecture> naming pattern is not the same among the various Windows platforms. IIRC there were some changes around Vista/Longhorn when Microsoft did it. Cheers, Vadim. > Thanks, > Roman. _______________________________________________ Libguestfs mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libguestfs
